|
The Awesome Science Thread (pg. 23)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lagrangian |
| quote: | | A new paper published in the journal Icarus is suggesting that the best way for an extraterrestrial civilization to communicate across stellar distances is to send messages embedded within genetic code. It’s an interesting take on the panspermia hypothesis, one the scientists hope will lead to “biological SETI.” |
" ... Nonetheless, the task might be somewhat alleviated. First, it is possible to predict some general aspects of a putative signal and its “language”, especially if one takes advantage of active SETI experience. For example, it is generally accepted that numerical language of arithmetic is the same for the entire universe (Freudenthal, 1960; Minsky, 1985).
Besides, symbols and grammar of this language, such as positional numeral systems with zero conception, are hallmarks of intelligence. Thus, interstellar messages sent from the Earth usually began with natural sequence of numbers in binary or decimal notation. To reinforce the artificiality, a symbol of zero was placed in the abstract position preceding the sequence. Those messages also included symbols of arithmetical operations, Egyptian triangle, DNA and oth- er notions of human consciousness (Sagan et al., 1972; The Staff at the NAIC, 1975; Sagan et al., 1978; Dumas & Dutil, 2004).
^^Check out the Sagan et al '78 reference. ing Awesome!
http://io9.com/scientists-say-an-al...our-d-472157262
| quote: | | To prove the theory, scientists would have to find patterns in the DNA that couldn’t have formed naturally. Terrestrial code, they say, may “display a thorough precision-type orderliness matching the criteria to be considered an informational signal.” Simple arrangements of the code could reveal a series of mathematical and “ideographical” patterns of symbolic language. |
| quote: | | Lastly, other biological and chemical reproductive processes may exist, or may even be more practical. Moreover, this schema would limit extraterrestrials to communicating with planets with the same biochemistry as ours. For us, that means L-amino acids, protein synthesis based on the same genetic code, and so on. |
|
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lagrangian
Listen, I understand that Nuclear Energy is still attractive. When it comes to science, I tend to walk away from tradition.What happened in Japan a couple of years ago, is a clear sign that nuclear energy is too risky to become fully dependent on it. I'm not proposing to rid ourselves of nuclear energy entirely, but I am certainly in favor of greater control of both nuclear energy production and weapons of mass destruction. |
What happened in Japan is no reason not to go full steam ahead on nuclear power. The systems in Japan all failed due to problems that were entirely preventable (mainly don't build a nuclear power plant where a tsunami could flood all your critical infrastructure).
Coal fired power plants kill more people every single year from cancers and respiratory illness than all nuclear power accidents combined over the entire history of nuclear energy production. More radioactive material is released from coal fired power plants every year than Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima combined, by a significant order of magnitude, as in thousands of tons.
Nuclear energy done right, and it can be done right with proper international government oversight is the single greatest source of energy we have available right now, and not utilizing it, in my opinion, is essentially a crime against humanity. We could have energy cheap enough to not even meter its usage. A flat fee energy model for home and industry, with excess energy to expand into new technologies like inductive road networks for electric cars and other vehicles, fully electric rail networks, etc.
We'd also decrease our need, worldwide, for fossil fuels so that we could have a readily available supply of hydrocarbons for things that they are more useful for, like plastics and other engineering needs.
Fully put, nuclear energy can save the world, but short term greed and fear mongering have basically killed it dead in its tracks for a considerable amount of time. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
And Australia would become rich, because we have a ton of uranium here :p
Yet there is only one small medical nuke reactor in this entire country. Go figure :/ |
|
|
| Lagrangian |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Nuclear energy done right, and it can be done right with proper international government oversight is the single greatest source of energy we have available right now, and not utilizing it, in my opinion, is essentially a crime against humanity. |
Exactly, and who's to choose 'right' or 'wrong', Denmark? Because the japanese are sub-classes of the master "race" Denmark "belongs" to?
Another pissing contest? Disarm the world, and whoever wins the next scientific race to the top, gets the next-'bleeding-edge' weaponry available.
Humans work well under the concept of "competition" and/or "fight-or-flight".
"Nuclear energy", in its broader term, makes a great tool if your ultimate goal is population control. Although, recent advances suggest, the best attack is actually "weather control" with a dose of "media-frenzy" to make it all believable. |
|
|
| Lagrangian |
| It wasn't indecent exposure on purpose, but the wave knocked off my budgie smugglers |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
And Australia would become rich, because we have a ton of uranium here :p
Yet there is only one small medical nuke reactor in this entire country. Go figure :/ |
Australians have a right to be ing afraid of nuclear power plants in their country. The risk of even the slightest mutation within the local wildlife would spell woe for all of humanity. |
|
|
| kadomony |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Nuclear energy is (or should be) the future. It could replace the entire world's energy needs if nuclear programs were expanded.
Granted, some form of fusion would obviously be completely revolutionary and an unbelievable achievement, but I doubt that will ever happen. It's way too hard to stabilize a fusion reaction. |
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...gy-8590480.html
also there was some other independent successful cold fusion project supposed to be revealed this year but i dont remember what it was |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| I know it's really cynical, but it seems like "breakthroughs" on cold fusion have occurred most every year for the past 50 years. :/ |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| Yeah, it seems like they frequently "almost" get it. |
|
|
|
|
